Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills. .

Maria Eagle: The arrangements are contracted. Serco has standards to meet; if the hon. Gentleman is saying that those standards are not being met I shall be happy to look into specific instances that have been brought to his attention. However, the arrangements are made on the basis of a contract and as far as I am aware, they are working well.

Lisbon Treaty (No.1)
	 — 
	(1( )st Allotted Day)

Edward Davey: Can the Home Secretary give the House an assurance that the UK will exercise its opt-in to co-operate with other European member states in this area? Surely it is much better to get stronger protection for our children through the approach that she is outlining than through an intergovernmental approach?

Dominic Grieve: I shall come on to the European arrest warrant later. The right hon. Gentleman sometimes leaps up like a jack-in-the-box, but I have a funny feeling that he might not have been in the Chamber during the Home Secretary's opening speech. Otherwise, he would have heard the exchanges on this issue. I recommend that he read them in  Hansard, but I will come back to this matter later.

Ian Davidson: Surely it is easy to be on the winning side if one capitulates every time there is a row? Anybody can manage to be on the winning side by constantly changing sides. Surely that argument misses the point?

Michael Connarty: People have many reasons for not going to other countries, and dealing with a language as difficult as Finnish will certainly be one. An interesting point—it is not related to asylum—was made to me by the Hungarian Foreign Secretary last week. There are actually more UK residents living and working in Hungary than there are Hungarian residents living and working in the UK. People have different reasons for travelling to other countries, but with regard to asylum, if people are not treated adequately and properly in a uniform manner throughout Europe, they will gravitate towards countries such as the UK. Despite criticisms, I still think that the UK has one of the most open and compassionate views of the rights of citizens to flee from terror and from places where their life is under threat.
	I turn to the agenda that is being advanced in this field under the Slovenian presidency. The train is moving, and if we do not want be on it, we had better get off it quickly. Slovenia is a country of two million people, and its presidency is taking this area of responsibility seriously. During the next six months, it will have to work on these matters and take decisions on behalf of everyone. Should passenger name records be passed on to other countries, including the United States? What is the European critical infrastructure, and how should it be protected and defended from terrorism? How should we deal with Europol? Europol will not go forward because of the treaty—it will do so anyway.
	What is Europol? I have visited Europol and was impressed by it. Europol members travel out of their own jurisdictions and work on our behalf in an information passing and gathering role. Sadly, they do not come down the street to arrest people, but they provide information that allows the local police to recognise individuals. There are questions about Europol's status. Should it have certain immunities? Should it be subject to conditions regarding an EU or EC jurisdiction, rather than to a co-operative arrangement between countries?
	We have mentioned Eurojust. That is covered by the returns directive, which allows us to send people back to countries when they are claiming asylum falsely. It is important that that matter is processed, and that it is dealt with under the current presidency. The Justice and Home Affairs Council has considered the matter of e-justice three times, and I hope that people will be able to use an e-justice portal to get justice in Europe. There will also be future group work on justice to consider.
	All those things will be dealt with under the Slovenian presidency during the next six months, and we must realise that they are good for Europe and good for the UK. We should take advantage of what comes out of that presidency under the reform treaty. Slovenia is already committed to the treaty, as are most countries in Europe, and we should be with them. Having doubts about the opt-in question, or the fact that we lost some of the arguments in the convention, is not a good enough reason to argue against the treaty.
	The paper that we considered in April 2007 on police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters was clearly about making progress through pooling our resources sensibly. We should approve of that. The hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned Europol, and I have been examining some of its successes. Our countries have problems with counterfeiting. Operation Diabolo, an example of Europol-guided police co-operation, seized 135 million counterfeit cigarettes and other items. Europol should be commended for that sort of thing. A worldwide child sex offender's network was dismantled because of the information gathered, passed on, secured and used by the police in different jurisdictions in Europe. All that was achieved by Europol. Every constituent of every hon. Member wants such things to happen. The idea of being scared of Europol or perceiving it as a bogey man police force is nonsense. We should co-operate with and commend it.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 It being more than three and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Deputy Speaker  forthwith  put the Main Question, pursuant to Order [this day] :—
	 The House divided: Ayes 360, Noes 167.

Christopher Huhne: I said very clearly that it is not a question of taking precedence over anything that is done by our authorities. The reality is that we are one of the member states that has pursued matters of fraud against the EU budget over the years, as we did, for example, in relation to some of the cross-border scams between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It is a question of whether there should be a capability to pursue fraud against the EU budget. The hon. Lady is attempting to have it both ways. It is of course possible to say, "Yes, this is outrageous—here is money that is being inadequately spent and inadequately monitored by the European Union" and then on the other hand to say, "No, we cannot have a means that will allow us to deal with it."

William Cash: I am delighted to hear that, but my hon. Friend has to be a bit careful here because subsidiarity is a theological concept, which was actually created or invented by the Jesuits. I was educated by the Jesuits, so I know all about this— [Interruption.] The principle regarding theology and hierarchy was exactly as my hon. Friend suggested. The whole object of the exercise was to demonstrate that whereas people should be allowed to lead their own lives in their own fashion at a certain level, they had to obey the highest level of the highest hierarchy, which is, of course, the Vatican from where the Pope speaks ex cathedra. It will not surprise anyone if I make an immediate analogy: just as subsidiarity leads to centralisation of decisions ex cathedra from the Vatican in the theological sense, so it will lead ex cathedra to what is decided by the European Court of Justice and the European Union. That is what it is all about.
	Article 61 C concerns the implementation of new measures to evaluate policies in areas of freedom, security and justice. Again, it requires the application of those provisions by qualified majority voting, and again it refers to member states being required
	"in collaboration with the Commission"
	—that wonderful word "collaboration", with its resonances of the 1940s—to
	"conduct objective and"
	—so-called—
	"impartial evaluation of the implementation of the Union policies".
	In relation to justice, article 61G states that the Council will
	"ensure administrative cooperation between...Member States"
	on police and judicial co-operation measures. That is another provision which, although I have not time to go into it in detail, raises serious points of objection. As for fighting cross-border crime, a European Union security committee will be set up to co-ordinate—that famous word—national police, customs and civil protection authorities. Apparently, it is proposed that the committee should focus on internal security. I regard that as, potentially, an extremely dangerous co-ordinating operation in the context of internal security and, no doubt, surveillance and all the other powers that will be involved.
	As I said in an intervention yesterday, one of the things that worry me is that in the space of one or two lines in the treaty, we are legislating to require the people of this country to implement the law under sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972, thus creating through a few lines and truncated proceedings the equivalent of many Bills which would normally undergo all their procedures in both Houses of Parliament. That is utterly outrageous.
	Member states will be expected to surrender legislative initiative on border checks, asylum and immigration and judicial co-operation in civil matters.

Bernard Jenkin: I, too, shall be brief.
	The exclusions included in the amendments are very important, for a reason that has not yet been mentioned. I hope that the exclusions will be effective in addressing the problem that I shall describe to the Committee—the way in which the justice and home affairs provisions interact with article 188(l), a new provision that states:
	"The Union may conclude an agreement with one or more third countries or International organisations where the Treaties so provide or where the conclusion of an agreement is necessary in order to achieve, within the framework of the Union's policies, one of the objectives referred to in the Treaties, or is provided for in a legally binding Union act or is likely to affect the common rules or alter their scope...Agreements concluded by the Union are binding upon the institutions of the Union and on its Member States."
	The importance of that provision is that the European Union already concludes international agreements with third countries on matters that are clearly within its competence, such as vehicle homologation, or the standardisation of road vehicles. The reason why the European Union cannot agree extradition treaties with third countries is because extradition is not included in the main part of the treaty, but that will change as we bring justice and home affairs into the purview of the treaties.
	We already have, for example, a common arrest warrant, which is at present a third pillar agreement between the member states. Under this treaty, that will become part of the main body of European community law. That means that the European Union will acquire the competence to agree an international agreement, as a nation state would agree an international agreement, with other nation states on the matter of extradition. Effectively, we would progressively lose from our national jurisdiction the right to agree extradition treaties.

Jim Murphy: I shall turn to new clause 4. The UK benefits hugely from our participation in EU agreements on police and criminal judicial co-operation. That co-operation is vital in helping our police services to fight terrorism and organised crime. The new clause would require the Government to opt out of all existing third pillar measures that had not been amended or replaced before the end of the five-year transitional period. During that period, the institutions will, as far as possible, amend or repeal existing third pillar measures. The UK will be able to decide whether to opt into amended measures. Six months before the end of the five-year period, the UK will have the choice whether to accept ECJ jurisdiction over any remaining, existing third pillar measure. This provision, which gives the UK a choice on each and every occasion in respect of justice and home affairs as to whether to accept ECJ jurisdiction in such cases, was a significant negotiating success for the United Kingdom, as the Home Secretary said earlier.
	On new clause 7, the principles of direct applicability and direct effect are nothing new. ECJ regulations and decisions have had this effect since the treaty of Rome in 1957. In opposing the amendments before the Committee this evening, we are clear that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) would deprive the UK of the benefits of the European arrest warrant. We also oppose amendment No. 26, tabled by the right hon. Member for Wells, which would leave the UK to deal with threats in isolation. The United Kingdom Government are not willing to accept that.
	On amendments Nos. 11 and 137, Europol was established by Maastricht, but the amendments would prevent effective co-operation between police forces across Europe. New clause 4, tabled by the right hon. Member for Wells, would require the UK to decide now whether to opt out of the remaining third pillar measures. Amendment No. 135, tabled by the hon. Member for Stone, would deprive the United Kingdom of the benefits of the movement of civil liberties and civil justice in respect of freedom across the European Union.
	Amendment No. 207 was tabled by Conservative Front Benchers. If passed, it would prevent the UK ratification of the treaty, and its ratification across the European Union. The amendment would delete a Committee attended by officials who work to ensure that justice in home affairs and co-operation in a coherent and effective way are possible.
	The amendments before us this evening would turn the Opposition's political isolation, which we have already spoken about, into entrenched institutional isolation. A once great party that helped to lead debate on Europe in the past has been scrabbling around on amendments to abolish a Committee that is attended by officials in the mistaken belief that it represents some great threat to our justice and home affairs processes. I invite Opposition Members to withdraw their amendments; otherwise, I encourage my hon. Friends to oppose them.

It being two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, The Chairman  put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order s [ 28 January and  this day].
	 The Committee divided: Ayes 170, Noes 353.

Bob Spink: I should like to present an important petition, organised by Faye Guyat, that addresses the issue of the nuisance and real harm caused to people and animals by the antisocial and selfish use of fireworks. Although a sound private Member's Bill on the subject became law in 2003, improvements can still be made, and there are still real problems in our community. I congratulate and thank every person who signed the petition. It states:
	The Petition of residents of Castle Point and others,
	Declares that freely available fireworks present danger and nuisance to people, property and animals and we believe that the suffering fireworks cause and the cost to emergency services and individuals are totally avoidable; whilst we believe this, we do not wish to prevent the enjoyment of traditional festivalsand therefore we urge the Government to amend the firework bill.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to restrict fireworks to licensed organised displays only at fixed times of the year, to include garden parties in the restricted category, to reduce the decibel limit to a maximum of 85db for all fireworks and to make it illegal to use or posses fireworks without a license.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P000115]

Edward Garnier: I am perfectly happy for there to be greater publicity about that issue, but it is the Minister and the Government, through the House of Commons, who should be accountable. I cannot see civil servants; I can see the Minister, who is here to speak for his Government.
	I fear that the Co-op must have been somewhat taken aback by the universally unenthusiastic response that it received, not least because its explanation to us was wholly devoid of detail. Its representatives said that they could not tell us too much because of the need to maintain commercial confidentiality. From the little that we could discover, however, it seemed that the project would have a devastating effect on my constituency. However, it seemed likely that those representing the area would have no say or very little say in the decision-making process.
	Yes, I accept that at the moment Harborough is only one of 57 applicant sites, and we may not end up in the shortlist of 10. However, neither I nor anyone else whose interests will be adversely affected by the proposal has any idea of how we can influence the decision. The Co-op's development manager and public affairs director have given a further, separate briefing to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton here in the House of Commons. In part they told me about, and in part they pleaded with me to appreciate, the benefits of their scheme. However, they would again not give me any details for fear of losing such commercial confidence as there was in their plans. I was not convinced by that or any other of their arguments, although I told them that they had a perfect right to advance such arguments.
	No matter how pure the Co-op's motives, I am speaking in a democratic and information vacuum, and all the indications do not allow for much optimism. It will not do lazily to advance a case for this development on the basis, "We need more housing, so why not have it here?" All development should be eco-friendly and should occur where it is right and needed, not just because a 5,000-acre plot is available. Just because there is a private flying club operating from an airstrip near Stoughton, it does not make this a brownfield site. Clearly, the Government will be attracted by convenience—think how much easier it is to deal with only one landowner as opposed to several. In this case, the Co-op owns 99 per cent. of the development site, with English Partnerships, an arm of Government, owning just a few hundred acres, but it is a willing partner.
	I am not suggesting that there is an improper relationship between the Co-op and the Labour party, but it is undeniable that the links between the Government party and the Co-op, generally, are old and deep. The Secretary of State, the Minister for Housing, and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Wright), all represent northern constituencies in regions where the Co-op has been a strong presence. They will be comfortable with each other, and although there is, I repeat, no suggestion of impropriety, there may be a natural sense of familiarity between an organisation that has its headquarters in Manchester and northern Members of Parliament. No matter how unfair or inaccurate that may be, it has created a perception of bias among the residents of Harborough district, whose enjoyment of their own properties and way of life will be irreversibly and undeniably damaged by this proposal. They also represent areas entirely different from Harborough. Employment levels in their areas are not as good as those in my area or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, average incomes are not as high as in my area, and owner-occupation and the availability of good quality housing may not be as prevalent as in Harborough or in Rutland and Melton. I can therefore understand the surprised reaction of the former Minister for Housing, now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, when I suggested to her in DCLG questions before Christmas that this massive development was not wanted or needed in Harborough.
	What are the most obvious consequences of letting this proposal go forward? The lack of existing transport infrastructure and the limited amount of strategic thinking about new roads in the Co-op's briefings is an area of particular concern to me and to the county's planners. The massive congestion that would result from linking the A47 to the A6 without further improvements would bring the whole area to a standstill at peak times. These problems would not happen overnight, but over a period while more and more homes are completed, with a slow creep towards gridlock as millions of tonnes of concrete and other building materials were brought on-site. Leicestershire county and Leicester city councils are looking for someone to fund a southern bypass from the A6 to the Ml, a route that is to the south and to the west of the Co-op site and which will become imperative if this new town arrives, but the Co-op has shown no enthusiasm to accept the implications of its development beyond the limits of its own land. Furthermore, it would face negotiating with multiple landowners, and construction would be expensive and take some time. Other potential eco-town sites are alongside motorways and astride train lines. The Stoughton estate is far away from either, and the concept of reopening a station near Great Glen is most unlikely to be seen as a priority by Network Rail or East Midlands Trains when they are trying to construct East Midlands Airport Parkway station in Nottinghamshire, which has so far taken some 20 years to get close to reality.
	The Co-op's own sustainability report, published in April 2007 in preparation for its SUE bid, admits:
	"There is no existing public transport infrastructure serving the majority of the SUE"—
	or, for that matter, an eco-town. The Co-op is relying on people living and working locally, and therefore walking, cycling or using the limited public transport, which is expected to be beefed up as numbers grow. That is frankly fanciful unless the new town is going to be a gated community with restrictions on the residents preventing them from travelling outside its perimeter. Despite Co-op hopes on the subject, a large percentage of the inhabitants of the new town would be commuters to London. That amount of additional commuters trying to get on to the A6 at peak times would mean that Kibworth will need a dual carriageway bypass, the road from Kibworth to Market Harborough will need upgrading to dual carriageway, and the Market Harborough bypass will need dualling. How much of that will be funded by the Co-op development?
	To begin with, as the first new residents arrive, their children will no doubt be educated in Oadby. Oadby's schools are already full and taking children from both the county and city. The pressures on all local authority budgets—already among the lowest funded by Government—will intensify as they try to cope with the additional workload of another major town before it is fully occupied and there is a full council tax income stream. New roads create new journeys. Eco-town residents will want to make their own decisions about where to work, what cars to have and what journeys to make. It is reckless to destroy rural Harborough on the back of a few aspirations on a PowerPoint slide.
	I wrote to the Secretary of State on 20 December. She did not reply, so I tabled a written question. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda), replied on 17 January—although the answer did not arrive until 22 January. He said that the eco-town programme would be subject to the statutory planning process,
	"for example through a review of the regional spatial strategy. As a consequence the local community and planning authorities will have the ability to engage with the process."
	Will the Minister specify the statute that allows for the process that his colleague wrote about and explain what the expression "to engage with the process" means in plain English? What is the legal status of that phrase?
	On Second Reading of the Planning Bill, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk), the Secretary of State said:
	"Matters such as eco-towns and large housing developments will continue to be decided by local authorities under the town and country planning system and by reference to the local development plans that have been selected."—[ Official Report, 10 December 2007; Vol. 469, c. 27.]
	There is room for a good deal of confusion about what the Government collectively intend and the planning process that governs eco-town developments. To allow planning authorities such as Harborough district council to be merely consultees as opposed to decision makers is to abuse local democracy and to divert ownership of the decision from my constituents to Ministers.
	This urban development, if allowed to go through, would utterly destroy a much valued green lung south-east of the city of Leicester to the commercial advantage of the Co-op but for no obvious local or county-wide public benefit. In reality, there will be nothing eco-friendly about that vast new urban settlement, albeit that I can see it has enormous financial advantages for the Co-op and English Partnerships at a time when farming incomes are low and wholesale development offers better rewards.
	The enormous development would create a town of more than 40,000 inhabitants on open farm land that would dwarf the neighbouring villages and even the nearest urban community of any size, Oadby. It will also gravely damage Leicester's plans for its regeneration. It will create an urban wedge that will break down the local rural environment and community in south-east Leicestershire and will allow the swamping of an area of considerable beauty with thousands of houses, cars and lorries and all the permanent infrastructure that would be needed to support such a large town.
	The Co-op claims that the development will create 12,000 or so new jobs. As I have said before, my constituency's unemployment rate is 1 per cent. Any new jobs would require people to be imported to do them. Strange as it may seem to MPs from less economically vibrant parts of the country, we do not need thousands of new jobs to provide work for jobless people in Harborough or Oadby and Wigston. It is, furthermore, unreal to think that the incoming occupants of the 15,000 new homes would all work in the alleged eco-factories that the Co-op claims will provide the jobs. Thousands of people will necessarily commute by car to work elsewhere within the region and, given that the Co-op wants to build a parkway station at Great Glen on the Sheffield main line that goes from St. Pancras to Leicester, it is likely that many hundreds of residents will commute to jobs in London.
	We do not need the type of forced or artificial economic regeneration that the proposal would mean. If one wants to create 12,000 more jobs in an area with virtually full employment, one has to import the jobs and import the housing to accommodate the employees and their families. We are beginning to see what only 800 new houses have done to Kibworth, a village on the A6 barely five miles from the proposed development site, in terms of disturbance and placing strains on our local services and infrastructure. We can only imagine what 15,000 new houses will do not only to Great Glen and its neighbouring villages but to inner and outer Leicester, to Oadby and to rural Harborough, too.
	I urge the Government to distinguish between the immediate or short-term financial interests of the Co-op, and the environmental, economic, social and other long-term interests of the people of Harborough district and Oadby and Wigston. The Government's attitude towards so-called eco-towns should not be allowed to be affected by a misunderstanding of the facts on the ground or public relations material put out by the developers. If the development goes ahead without local input or consent it will arouse untold anger and revulsion. If we get it wrong we get it wrong for ever.

Iain Wright: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I can confirm that the eco-town proposals will be subject to the statutory planning framework. They will not be outside that framework, and there will be no fast-track proposals. I shall expand on that important point later in my remarks. The hon. Gentleman mentioned new towns, and I shall also deal with that subject in a moment.
	The eco-town as a whole must be capable of reaching zero-carbon standards, and must demonstrate a strength in one area of sustainability. That could be technological, such as the treatment of waste water or the supply of energy, or it could be through an innovative means of encouraging low-carbon living.
	Locations are also important, as well as innovation on site, and that is why, across government, we are looking at proposals to assess whether there are issues of potential flood risk or of scarcity of natural resources. We are also considering the effects that an eco-town might have on the natural environment, on the green spaces that we all have the right to enjoy, and on the protected landscapes or the species that inhabit them. We will look for innovative proposals that enhance our biodiversity and improve the natural environment by integrating green spaces into the new towns.
	The Government have made it clear that they want to make use of brownfield land where there are good opportunities to do so, and a number of schemes using brownfield sites have been put forward. What is more important than anything, however, is that towns are built in sustainable locations that relate well to existing towns and villages.
	The hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned transport, and I agree that strong transport links are essential to the new eco-towns. The new towns must demonstrate clearly how they will encourage a reduction in reliance on the car and a shift towards other, more sustainable transport options. We are looking for high-quality offers on accessible public transport, and want cycling and walking to be promoted. We will expect transport plans to be drawn up for each scheme which will outline how such objectives can be achieved—both in the eco-town itself, and in its links with surrounding towns and villages.
	We are looking across government at the potential impacts on the road and rail network of the proposals that we have received, and we are assessing how they will deliver on plans to link to other centres and to employment in the most sustainable way.
	Even though he does not agree with the proposal in his area, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said that there had been enormous interest in the eco-towns idea. More than 50 bids have been received, many of them with excellent proposals for new developments. We expect to publish the proposals for eco-towns in February, once we have completed an initial assessment of the applications received, which will be subject to public consultation prior to final decisions on location.
	In the time left to me, I want to stress the following point: while the initial assessment is under way, I cannot comment on any specific scheme. However, I can make some comments about eco-towns process that will apply in all cases. I must stress that there will be considerable opportunity for consultation on the proposals, including with local authorities and the public, before the process is completed.

Iain Wright: Yes, I can. That is an important point.
	In addition to the Departments, Natural England and the Environment Agency will have an input into the scheme, but that is not the end of the story. This is an initial assessment of the potential of all the bids that have come forward; its purpose is to exclude sites where there are too many showstoppers to allow development to take place. Immediately following that process, we will publish a shorter list than the original 50—probably about 10—for public consultation, and we will take every opportunity to engage with local authorities and the public during this time to ensure that their views are heard.
	Following that period of public consultation, we will make final decisions on the 10 areas that have the most potential to become the eco-towns of the future. I would like to say a little about the planning system because it is the aspect that is causing the hon. and learned Gentleman and others, such as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton, the most concern. I confirm what my right hon. Friend—
	 The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker  adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	 Adjourned at eighteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.
	Corrections
	 Official Report, 23 January 2008: Col. 1542, penultimate line, insert:

Robert Wilson: No, we were not.
	 Official Report, 28 January 2008: Col. 26, in Division No. 55, insert:
	Clarke, Mr. Tom